Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] gitweb: git_split_heads_body function.

From: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2008, 12:26 UTC
Message-ID: <cb7bb73a0811160426g1e56faa7ia9b1f398fea039a8@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200811161312.50090.jnareb@gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 27 quoted lines

> Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>> The problem is that we have gsoc2008/gitweb-caching/branch1
>> gsoc2008/gitweb-caching/branch2 gsoc2008/gitstats/branch3
>> gsoc2008/gitstats/branch3, and my current code would show
>> gitweb-caching/branch1, gitweb-caching/branch2 etc under gsoc2008.
>
> I'm not sure if it wouldn't be simpler solution to just code _sorting_
> heads-like view ('heads', 'remotes', 'tags') by ref name, or by age.
> It would be best to have both, even...
>
> Even without dividing 'remotes' view into subcategories (and
> subsubcategories) you would have natural grouping:
>
>  gsoc2008/gitweb-caching/branch1
>  gsoc2008/gitweb-caching/branch2
>  gsoc2008/gitstats/branch3
>  gsoc2008/gitstats/branch4
>
> if sorted by branch (ref) name, and not (possibly)
>
>  gsoc2008/gitweb-caching/branch1
>  gsoc2008/gitstats/branch4
>  origin/todo
>  gsoc2008/gitweb-caching/branch2
>  gsoc2008/gitstats/branch3
>
> when sorted by age (hmmm... committerdate or authordate?)

Sorting is another interesting feature to look into, yes, but as you mention it's a separate feature that would complement grouping.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> Having branch1 and branch2 under gsoc2008/gitweb-caching, and branch3
>> and branch4 under gsoc2008/gitstats would be more logical,
>> remote-wise, but it would of course lose the coupling between all the
>> gsoc2008 remotes.
>>
>> If deep nesting is not a problem, I can code something to have
>> gitweb-caching and gistats under gsoc2008, and the respective branches
>> within.
>
> The problems with nesting is those pesky remotes with only single
> tracked branch to them; they are I think quote common... well, unless
> you do one-shot pull, directly into local branch.

My idea with this would be to only create a group if it has at least N

> 1 (probably N=2) entries.

> All that said, splitting 'remotes' section is difficult; using first
> dirname as section is probably easiest, and good enough in most cases.
> That is why I think this part should be put into separate series, to
> not hinder rest of patches.

Yes, I will resend the 'remote_heads' feature as a new (reduced) patchset, then add (separate patchset) grouping for ref lists, and then add (yet another patchset) detached head.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta